Kejadian 37:1-36

Joseph’s Dreams

37:1 But Jacob lived in the land where his father had stayed, ¹  in the land of Canaan. ² 

37:2 This is the account of Jacob.

Joseph, his seventeen-year-old son, ³  was taking care of ⁴  the flocks with his brothers. Now he was a youngster ⁵  working with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, his father’s wives. ⁶  Joseph brought back a bad report about them ⁷  to their father.

37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons ⁸  because he was a son born to him late in life, ⁹  and he made a special ¹⁰  tunic for him. 37:4 When Joseph’s ¹¹  brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, ¹²  they hated Joseph ¹³  and were not able to speak to him kindly. ¹⁴ 

37:5 Joseph ¹⁵  had a dream, ¹⁶  and when he told his brothers about it, ¹⁷  they hated him even more. ¹⁸  37:6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: ¹⁹  37:7 There we were, ²⁰  binding sheaves of grain in the middle of the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose up and stood upright and your sheaves surrounded my sheaf and bowed down ²¹  to it!” 37:8 Then his brothers asked him, “Do you really think you will rule over us or have dominion over us?” ²²  They hated him even more ²³  because of his dream and because of what he said. ²⁴ 

37:9 Then he had another dream, ²⁵  and told it to his brothers. “Look,” ²⁶  he said. “I had another dream. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” 37:10 When he told his father and his brothers, his father rebuked him, saying, “What is this dream that you had? ²⁷  Will I, your mother, and your brothers really come and bow down to you?” ²⁸  37:11 His brothers were jealous ²⁹  of him, but his father kept in mind what Joseph said. ³⁰ 

37:12 When his brothers had gone to graze their father’s flocks near Shechem, 37:13 Israel said to Joseph, “Your brothers ³¹  are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I will send you to them.” “I’m ready,” ³²  Joseph replied. ³³  37:14 So Jacob ³⁴  said to him, “Go now and check on ³⁵  the welfare ³⁶  of your brothers and of the flocks, and bring me word.” So Jacob ³⁷  sent him from the valley of Hebron.

37:15 When Joseph reached Shechem, ³⁸  a man found him wandering ³⁹  in the field, so the man asked him, “What are you looking for?” 37:16 He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Please tell ⁴⁰  me where they are grazing their flocks.” 37:17 The man said, “They left this area, ⁴¹  for I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan.

37:18 Now Joseph’s brothers ⁴²  saw him from a distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him. 37:19 They said to one another, “Here comes this master of dreams! ⁴³  37:20 Come now, let’s kill him, throw him into one of the cisterns, and then say that a wild ⁴⁴  animal ate him. Then we’ll see how his dreams turn out!” ⁴⁵ 

37:21 When Reuben heard this, he rescued Joseph ⁴⁶  from their hands, ⁴⁷  saying, ⁴⁸  “Let’s not take his life!” ⁴⁹  37:22 Reuben continued, ⁵⁰  “Don’t shed blood! Throw him into this cistern that is here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him.” ⁵¹  (Reuben said this ⁵²  so he could rescue Joseph ⁵³  from them ⁵⁴  and take him back to his father.)

37:23 When Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped him ⁵⁵  of his tunic, the special tunic that he wore. 37:24 Then they took him and threw him into the cistern. (Now the cistern was empty; ⁵⁶  there was no water in it.)

37:25 When they sat down to eat their food, they looked up ⁵⁷  and saw ⁵⁸  a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead. Their camels were carrying spices, balm, and myrrh down to Egypt. ⁵⁹  37:26 Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? 37:27 Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, ⁶⁰  for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” His brothers agreed. ⁶¹  37:28 So when the Midianite ⁶²  merchants passed by, Joseph’s brothers pulled ⁶³  him ⁶⁴  out of the cistern and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. The Ishmaelites ⁶⁵  then took Joseph to Egypt.

37:29 Later Reuben returned to the cistern to find that Joseph was not in it! ⁶⁶  He tore his clothes, 37:30 returned to his brothers, and said, “The boy isn’t there! And I, where can I go?” 37:31 So they took Joseph’s tunic, killed a young goat, ⁶⁷  and dipped the tunic in the blood. 37:32 Then they brought the special tunic to their father ⁶⁸  and said, “We found this. Determine now whether it is your son’s tunic or not.”

37:33 He recognized it and exclaimed, “It is my son’s tunic! A wild animal has eaten him! ⁶⁹  Joseph has surely been torn to pieces!” 37:34 Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth, ⁷⁰  and mourned for his son many days. 37:35 All his sons and daughters stood by ⁷¹  him to console him, but he refused to be consoled. “No,” he said, “I will go to the grave mourning my son.” ⁷²  So Joseph’s ⁷³  father wept for him.

37:36 Now ⁷⁴  in Egypt the Midianites ⁷⁵  sold Joseph ⁷⁶  to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. ⁷⁷ 

Kejadian 4:17

The Beginning of Civilization

4:17 Cain had marital relations ⁷⁸  with his wife, and she became pregnant ⁷⁹  and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was building a city, and he named the city after ⁸⁰  his son Enoch.

Kejadian 4:1

The Story of Cain and Abel

4:1 Now ⁸¹  the man had marital relations with ⁸²  his wife Eve, and she became pregnant ⁸³  and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created ⁸⁴  a man just as the Lord did!” ⁸⁵ 

Ayub 12:19

12:19 He leads priests away stripped ⁸⁶ 

and overthrows ⁸⁷  the potentates. ⁸⁸ 

Mazmur 2:10-11

2:10 So now, you kings, do what is wise; ⁸⁹ 

you rulers of the earth, submit to correction! ⁹⁰ 

2:11 Serve ⁹¹  the Lord in fear!

Repent in terror! ⁹² 

Mazmur 72:11

72:11 All kings will bow down to him;

all nations will serve him.

Mazmur 82:1

Psalm 82 ⁹³ 

A psalm of Asaph.

82:1 God stands in ⁹⁴  the assembly of El; ⁹⁵ 

in the midst of the gods ⁹⁶  he renders judgment. ⁹⁷ 

Amsal 8:15-16

8:15 Kings reign by means of me,

and potentates ⁹⁸  decree ⁹⁹  righteousness;

8:16 by me princes rule,

as well as nobles and ¹⁰⁰  all righteous judges. ¹⁰¹ 

Amsal 8:1

The Appeal of Wisdom ¹⁰² 

8:1 Does not wisdom call out?

Does not understanding raise her voice?

Titus 1:15

1:15 All is pure to those who are pure. But to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

Wahyu 1:5

1:5 and from Jesus Christ – the faithful ¹⁰³  witness, ¹⁰⁴  the firstborn from among the dead, the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has set us free ¹⁰⁵  from our sins at the cost of ¹⁰⁶  his own blood

Wahyu 17:14

17:14 They will make war with the Lamb, but the Lamb will conquer them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those accompanying ¹⁰⁷  the Lamb are the called, chosen, and faithful.”

Wahyu 19:16

19:16 He has a name written on his clothing and on his thigh: “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

[37:1]  ¹ tn Heb “the land of the sojournings of his father.”

[37:1]  ² sn The next section begins with the heading This is the account of Jacob in Gen 37:2, so this verse actually forms part of the preceding section as a concluding contrast with Esau and his people. In contrast to all the settled and expanded population of Esau, Jacob was still moving about in the land without a permanent residence and without kings. Even if the Edomite king list was added later (as the reference to kings in Israel suggests), its placement here in contrast to Jacob and his descendants is important. Certainly the text deals with Esau before dealing with Jacob – that is the pattern. But the detail is so great in chap. 36 that the contrast cannot be missed.

[37:2]  ³ tn Heb “a son of seventeen years.” The word “son” is in apposition to the name “Joseph.”

[37:2]  ⁴ tn Or “tending”; Heb “shepherding” or “feeding.”

[37:2]  ⁵ tn Or perhaps “a helper.” The significance of this statement is unclear. It may mean “now the lad was with,” or it may suggest Joseph was like a servant to them.

[37:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “and he [was] a young man with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, the wives of his father.”

[37:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “their bad report.” The pronoun is an objective genitive, specifying that the bad or damaging report was about the brothers.

[37:2]  sn Some interpreters portray Joseph as a tattletale for bringing back a bad report about them [i.e., his brothers], but the entire Joseph story has some of the characteristics of wisdom literature. Joseph is presented in a good light – not because he was perfect, but because the narrative is showing how wisdom rules. In light of that, this section portrays Joseph as faithful to his father in little things, even though unpopular – and so he will eventually be given authority over greater things.

[37:3]  ⁸ tn The disjunctive clause provides supplemental information vital to the story. It explains in part the brothers’ animosity toward Joseph.

[37:3]  sn The statement Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons brings forward a motif that played an important role in the family of Isaac – parental favoritism. Jacob surely knew what that had done to him and his brother Esau, and to his own family. But now he showers affection on Rachel’s son Joseph.

[37:3]  ⁹ tn Heb “a son of old age was he to him.” This expression means “a son born to him when he [i.e., Jacob] was old.”

[37:3]  ¹⁰ tn It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.

[37:4]  ¹¹ tn Heb “his”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:4]  ¹² tn Heb “of his brothers.” This is redundant in contemporary English and has been replaced in the translation by the pronoun “them.”

[37:4]  ¹³ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:4]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “speak to him for peace.”

[37:5]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and he”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:5]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “dreamed a dream.”

[37:5]  ¹⁷ sn Some interpreters see Joseph as gloating over his brothers, but the text simply says he told his brothers about it (i.e., the dream). The text gives no warrant for interpreting his manner as arrogant or condescending. It seems normal that he would share a dream with the family.

[37:5]  ¹⁸ tn The construction uses a hendiadys, “they added to hate,” meaning they hated him even more.

[37:6]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “hear this dream which I dreamed.”

[37:7]  ²⁰ tn All three clauses in this dream report begin with וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), which lends vividness to the report. This is represented in the translation by the expression “there we were.”

[37:7]  ²¹ tn The verb means “to bow down to the ground.” It is used to describe worship and obeisance to masters.

[37:8]  ²² tn Heb “Ruling, will you rule over us, or reigning, will you reign over us?” The statement has a poetic style, with the two questions being in synonymous parallelism. Both verbs in this statement are preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Joseph’s brothers said, “You don’t really think you will rule over us, do you? You don’t really think you will have dominion over us, do you?”

[37:8]  ²³ tn This construction is identical to the one in Gen 37:5.

[37:8]  ²⁴ sn The response of Joseph’s brothers is understandable, given what has already been going on in the family. But here there is a hint of uneasiness – they hated him because of his dream and because of his words. The dream bothered them, as well as his telling them. And their words in the rhetorical question are ironic, for this is exactly what would happen. The dream was God’s way of revealing it.

[37:9]  ²⁵ tn Heb “And he dreamed yet another dream.”

[37:9]  ²⁶ tn Heb “and he said, ‘Look.’” The order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse have been rearranged in the translation for stylistic reasons. Both clauses of the dream report begin with הִנֵּה (hinneh, “look”), which lends vividness to the report.

[37:10]  ²⁷ sn The question What is this dream that you had? expresses Jacob’s dismay at what he perceives to be Joseph’s audacity.

[37:10]  ²⁸ tn Heb “Coming, will we come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow down to you to the ground?” The verb “come” is preceded by the infinitive absolute, which lends emphasis. It is as if Jacob said, “You don’t really think we will come…to bow down…do you?”

[37:11]  ²⁹ sn Joseph’s brothers were already jealous of him, but this made it even worse. Such jealousy easily leads to action, as the next episode in the story shows. Yet dreams were considered a form of revelation, and their jealousy was not only of the favoritism of their father, but of the dreams. This is why Jacob kept the matter in mind.

[37:11]  ³⁰ tn Heb “kept the word.” The referent of the Hebrew term “word” has been specified as “what Joseph said” in the translation for clarity, and the words “in mind” have been supplied for stylistic reasons.

[37:13]  ³¹ tn The text uses an interrogative clause: “Are not your brothers,” which means “your brothers are.”

[37:13]  ³² sn With these words Joseph is depicted here as an obedient son who is ready to do what his father commands.

[37:13]  ³³ tn Heb “and he said, ‘Here I am.’” The referent of the pronoun “he” (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity, and the order of the introductory clause and the direct discourse has been rearranged for stylistic reasons.

[37:14]  ³⁴ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:14]  ³⁵ tn Heb “see.”

[37:14]  ³⁶ tn Heb “peace.”

[37:14]  ³⁷ tn Heb “he”; the referent (Jacob) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:15]  ³⁸ tn Heb “and he [i.e., Joseph] went to Shechem.” The referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:15]  ³⁹ tn Heb “and a man found him and look, he was wandering in the field.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the action through this unnamed man’s eyes.

[37:16]  ⁴⁰ tn The imperative in this sentence has more of the nuance of a request than a command.

[37:17]  ⁴¹ tn Heb “they traveled from this place.”

[37:18]  ⁴² tn Heb “and they”; the referent (Joseph’s brothers) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:19]  ⁴³ tn Heb “Look, this master of dreams is coming.” The brothers’ words have a sarcastic note and indicate that they resent his dreams.

[37:20]  ⁴⁴ tn The Hebrew word can sometimes carry the nuance “evil,” but when used of an animal it refers to a dangerous wild animal.

[37:20]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “what his dreams will be.”

[37:21]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:21]  ⁴⁷ sn From their hands. The instigators of this plot may have been the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (see v. 2).

[37:21]  ⁴⁸ tn Heb “and he said.”

[37:21]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “we must not strike him down [with respect to] life.”

[37:22]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “and Reuben said to them.”

[37:22]  ⁵¹ sn The verbs translated shed, throw, and lay sound alike in Hebrew; the repetition of similar sounds draws attention to Reuben’s words.

[37:22]  ⁵² tn The words “Reuben said this” are not in the Hebrew text, but have been supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[37:22]  ⁵³ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:22]  ⁵⁴ tn Heb “from their hands” (cf. v. 21). This expression has been translated as “them” here for stylistic reasons.

[37:23]  ⁵⁵ tn Heb “Joseph”; the proper name has been replaced by the pronoun (“him”) in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[37:24]  ⁵⁶ tn The disjunctive clause gives supplemental information that helps the reader or hearer to picture what happened.

[37:25]  ⁵⁷ tn Heb “lifted up their eyes.”

[37:25]  ⁵⁸ tn Heb “and they saw and look.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the event through the eyes of the brothers.

[37:25]  ⁵⁹ tn Heb “and their camels were carrying spices, balm, and myrrh, going to go down to Egypt.”

[37:27]  ⁶⁰ tn Heb “let not our hand be upon him.”

[37:27]  ⁶¹ tn Heb “listened.”

[37:28]  ⁶² sn On the close relationship between Ishmaelites (v. 25) and Midianites, see Judg 8:24.

[37:28]  ⁶³ tn Heb “they drew and they lifted up.” The referent (Joseph’s brothers) has been specified in the translation for clarity; otherwise the reader might assume the Midianites had pulled Joseph from the cistern (but cf. NAB).

[37:28]  ⁶⁴ tn Heb “Joseph” (both here and in the following clause); the proper name has been replaced both times by the pronoun “him” in the translation for stylistic reasons.

[37:28]  ⁶⁵ tn Heb “they”; the referent (the Ishmaelites) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:29]  ⁶⁶ tn Heb “and look, Joseph was not in the cistern.” By the use of וְהִנֵּה (vÿhinneh, “and look”), the narrator invites the reader to see the situation through Reuben’s eyes.

[37:31]  ⁶⁷ sn It was with two young goats that Jacob deceived his father (Gen 27:9); now with a young goat his sons continue the deception that dominates this family.

[37:32]  ⁶⁸ tn Heb “and they sent the special tunic and they brought [it] to their father.” The text as it stands is problematic. It sounds as if they sent the tunic on ahead and then came and brought it to their father. Some emend the second verb to a Qal form and read “and they came.” In this case, they sent the tunic on ahead.

[37:33]  ⁶⁹ sn A wild animal has eaten him. Jacob draws this conclusion on his own without his sons actually having to lie with their words (see v. 20). Dipping the tunic in the goat’s blood was the only deception needed.

[37:34]  ⁷⁰ tn Heb “and put sackcloth on his loins.”

[37:35]  ⁷¹ tn Heb “arose, stood”; which here suggests that they stood by him in his time of grief.

[37:35]  ⁷² tn Heb “and he said, ‘Indeed I will go down to my son mourning to Sheol.’” Sheol was viewed as the place where departed spirits went after death.

[37:35]  ⁷³ tn Heb “his”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:36]  ⁷⁴ tn The disjunctive clause formally signals closure for this episode of Joseph’s story, which will be resumed in Gen 39.

[37:36]  ⁷⁵ tc The MT spells the name of the merchants as מְדָנִים (mÿdanim, “Medanites”) rather than מִדְיָנִים (midyanim, “Midianites”) as in v. 28. It is likely that the MT is corrupt at this point, with the letter yod (י) being accidentally omitted. The LXX, Vulgate, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Syriac read “Midianites” here. Some prefer to read “Medanites” both here and in v. 28, but Judg 8:24, which identifies the Midianites and Ishmaelites, favors the reading “Midianites.”

[37:36]  ⁷⁶ tn Heb “him”; the referent (Joseph) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[37:36]  ⁷⁷ sn The expression captain of the guard might indicate that Potiphar was the chief executioner.

[4:17]  ⁷⁸ tn Heb “knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.

[4:17]  ⁷⁹ tn Or “she conceived.”

[4:17]  ⁸⁰ tn Heb “according to the name of.”

[4:1]  ⁸¹ tn The disjunctive clause (conjunction + subject + verb) introduces a new episode in the ongoing narrative.

[4:1]  ⁸² tn Heb “the man knew,” a frequent euphemism for sexual relations.

[4:1]  ⁸³ tn Or “she conceived.”

[4:1]  ⁸⁴ tn Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I have created”) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew (קַיִן, qayin) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfect of קָנָה (qanah). There are two homonymic verbs with this spelling, one meaning “obtain, acquire” and the other meaning “create” (see Gen 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Ps 139:13; Prov 8:22). The latter fits this context very well. Eve has created a man.

[4:1]  ⁸⁵ tn Heb “with the Lord.” The particle אֶת־ (’et) is not the accusative/object sign, but the preposition “with” as the ancient versions attest. Some take the preposition in the sense of “with the help of” (see BDB 85 s.v. אֵת; cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV), while others prefer “along with” in the sense of “like, equally with, in common with” (see Lev 26:39; Isa 45:9; Jer 23:28). Either works well in this context; the latter is reflected in the present translation. Some understand אֶת־ as the accusative/object sign and translate, “I have acquired a man – the Lord.” They suggest that the woman thought (mistakenly) that she had given birth to the incarnate Lord, the Messiah who would bruise the Serpent’s head. This fanciful suggestion is based on a questionable allegorical interpretation of Gen 3:15 (see the note there on the word “heel”).

[4:1]  sn Since Exod 6:3 seems to indicate that the name Yahweh (יְהוָה, yÿhvah, translated Lord) was first revealed to Moses (see also Exod 3:14), it is odd to see it used in quotations in Genesis by people who lived long before Moses. This problem has been resolved in various ways: (1) Source critics propose that Exod 6:3 is part of the “P” (or priestly) tradition, which is at odds with the “J” (or Yahwistic) tradition. (2) Many propose that “name” in Exod 6:3 does not refer to the divine name per se, but to the character suggested by the name. God appeared to the patriarchs primarily in the role of El Shaddai, the giver of fertility, not as Yahweh, the one who fulfills his promises. In this case the patriarchs knew the name Yahweh, but had not experienced the full significance of the name. In this regard it is possible that Exod 6:3b should not be translated as a statement of denial, but as an affirmation followed by a rhetorical question implying that the patriarchs did indeed know God by the name of Yahweh, just as they knew him as El Shaddai. D. A. Garrett, following the lead of F. Andersen, sees Exod 6:2-3 as displaying a paneled A/B parallelism and translates them as follows: (A) “I am Yahweh.” (B) “And I made myself known to Abraham…as El Shaddai.” (A') “And my name is Yahweh”; (B') “Did I not make myself known to them?” (D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis, 21). However, even if one translates the text this way, the Lord’s words do not necessarily mean that he made the name Yahweh known to the fathers. God is simply affirming that he now wants to be called Yahweh (see Exod 3:14-16) and that he revealed himself in prior times as El Shaddai. If we stress the parallelism with B, the implied answer to the concluding question might be: “Yes, you did make yourself known to them – as El Shaddai!” The main point of the verse would be that El Shaddai, the God of the fathers, and the God who has just revealed himself to Moses as Yahweh are one and the same. (3) G. J. Wenham suggests that pre-Mosaic references to Yahweh are the product of the author/editor of Genesis, who wanted to be sure that Yahweh was identified with the God of the fathers. In this regard, note how Yahweh is joined with another divine name or title in Gen 9:26-27; 14:22; 15:2, 8; 24:3, 7, 12, 27, 42, 48; 27:20; 32:9. The angel uses the name Yahweh when instructing Hagar concerning her child’s name, but the actual name (Ishma-el, “El hears”) suggests that El, not Yahweh, originally appeared in the angel’s statement (16:11). In her response to the angel Hagar calls God El, not Yahweh (16:13). In 22:14 Abraham names the place of sacrifice “Yahweh Will Provide” (cf. v. 16), but in v. 8 he declares, “God will provide.” God uses the name Yahweh when speaking to Jacob at Bethel (28:13) and Jacob also uses the name when he awakens from the dream (28:16). Nevertheless he names the place Beth-el (“house of El”). In 31:49 Laban prays, “May Yahweh keep watch,” but in v. 50 he declares, “God is a witness between you and me.” Yahweh’s use of the name in 15:7 and 18:14 may reflect theological idiom, while the use in 18:19 is within a soliloquy. (Other uses of Yahweh in quotations occur in 16:2, 5; 24:31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 56; 26:22, 28-29; 27:7, 27; 29:32-35; 30:24, 30; 49:18. In these cases there is no contextual indication that a different name was originally used.) For a fuller discussion of this proposal, see G. J. Wenham, “The Religion of the Patriarchs,” Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives, 189-93.

[12:19]  ⁸⁶ tn Except for “priests,” the phraseology is identical to v. 17a.

[12:19]  ⁸⁷ tn The verb has to be defined by its context: it can mean “falsify” (Exod 23:8), “make tortuous” (Prov 19:3), or “plunge” into misfortune (Prov 21:12). God overthrows those who seem to be solid.

[12:19]  ⁸⁸ tn The original meaning of אֵיתָן (’eytan) is “perpetual.” It is usually an epithet for a torrent that is always flowing. It carries the connotations of permanence and stability; here applied to people in society, it refers to one whose power and influence does not change. These are the pillars of society.

[2:10]  ⁸⁹ sn The speaker here is either the psalmist or the Davidic king, who now addresses the rebellious kings.

[2:10]  ⁹⁰ tn The Niphal has here a tolerative nuance; the kings are urged to submit themselves to the advice being offered.

[2:11]  ⁹¹ tn The Hebrew verb translated “serve” refers here to submitting to the Lord’s sovereignty as expressed through the rule of the Davidic king. Such “service” would involve maintaining allegiance to the Davidic king by paying tribute on a regular basis.

[2:11]  ⁹² tn Traditionally, “rejoice with trembling” (KJV). The verb גִּיל (gil) normally means “rejoice,” but this meaning does not fit well here in conjunction with “in trembling.” Some try to understand “trembling” (and the parallel יִרְאָה, yir’ah, “fear”) in the sense of “reverential awe” and then take the verbs “serve” and “rejoice” in the sense of “worship” (cf. NASB). But רְעָדָה (rÿ’adah, “trembling”) and its related terms consistently refer to utter terror and fear (see Exod 15:15; Job 4:14; Pss 48:6; 55:5; 104:32; Isa 33:14; Dan 10:11) or at least great emotional distress (Ezra 10:9). It seems more likely here that גִּיל carries its polarized meaning “mourn, lament,” as in Hos 10:5. “Mourn, lament” would then be metonymic in this context for “repent” (referring to one’s rebellious ways). On the meaning of the verb in Hos 10:5, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 556-57.

[82:1]  ⁹³ sn Psalm 82. The psalmist pictures God standing in the “assembly of El” where he accuses the “gods” of failing to promote justice on earth. God pronounces sentence upon them, announcing that they will die like men. Having witnessed the scene, the psalmist then asks God to establish his just rule over the earth.

[82:1]  ⁹⁴ tn Or “presides over.”

[82:1]  ⁹⁵ tn The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (’adat ’el, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT. (1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly. (2) Others take אֵל as a superlative here (“God stands in the great assembly”), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ’dt ’ilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5:533-36.

[82:1]  ⁹⁶ sn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5).

[82:1]  ⁹⁷ sn The picture of God rendering judgment among the gods clearly depicts his sovereign authority as universal king (see v. 8, where the psalmist boldly affirms this truth).

[8:15]  ⁹⁸ tn The verb רָזַן (razan) means “to be weighty; to be judicious; to be commanding.” It only occurs in the Qal active participle in the plural as a substantive, meaning “potentates; rulers” (e.g., Ps 1:1-3). Cf. KJV, ASV “princes”; NAB “lawgivers.”

[8:15]  ⁹⁹ sn This verb יְחֹקְקוּ (yÿkhoqqu) is related to the noun חֹק (khoq), which is a “statute; decree.” The verb is defined as “to cut in; to inscribe; to decree” (BDB 349 s.v. חָקַק). The point the verse is making is that when these potentates decree righteousness, it is by wisdom. History records all too often that these rulers acted as fools and opposed righteousness (cf. Ps 2:1-3). But people in power need wisdom to govern the earth (e.g., Isa 11:1-4 which predicts how Messiah will use wisdom to do this very thing). The point is underscored with the paronomasia in v. 15 with “kings” and “will reign” from the same root, and then in v. 16 with both “princes” and “rule” being cognate. The repetition of sounds and meanings strengthens the statements.

[8:16]  ¹⁰⁰ tn The term “and” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of smoothness and readability.

[8:16]  ¹⁰¹ tc Many of the MT mss read “sovereigns [princes], all the judges of the earth.” The LXX has “sovereigns…rule the earth.” But the MT manuscript in the text has “judges of righteousness.” C. H. Toy suggests that the Hebrew here has assimilated Psalm 148:11 in its construction (Proverbs [ICC], 167). The expression “judges of the earth” is what one would expect, but the more difficult and unexpected reading, the one scribes might change, would be “judges of righteousness.” If that reading stands, then it would probably be interpreted as using an attributive genitive.

[8:1]  ¹⁰² sn In this chapter wisdom is personified. In 1:20-33 wisdom proclaims her value, and in 3:19-26 wisdom is the agent of creation. Such a personification has affinities with the wisdom literature of the ancient Near East, and may have drawn on some of that literature, albeit with appropriate safeguards (Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs, 23-70). Wisdom in Proverbs 8, however, is not a deity like Egypt’s Ma`at or the Assyrian-Babylonian Ishtar. It is simply presented as if it were a self-conscious divine being distinct but subordinate to God; but in reality it is the personification of the attribute of wisdom displayed by God (R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes [AB], 69-72; and R. Marcus, “On Biblical Hypostases of Wisdom,” HUCA 23 [1950-1951]: 157-71). Many have equated wisdom in this chapter with Jesus Christ. This connection works only in so far as Jesus reveals the nature of the Father, just as Proverbs presents wisdom as an attribute of God. Jesus’ claims included wisdom (Matt 12:42) and a unique knowledge of God (Matt 11:25-27). He even personified wisdom in a way that was similar to Proverbs (Matt 11:19). Paul saw the fulfillment of wisdom in Christ (Col 1:15-20; 2:3) and affirmed that Christ became our wisdom in the crucifixion (1 Cor 1:24, 30). So this personification in Proverbs provides a solid foundation for the similar revelation of wisdom in Christ. But because wisdom is a creation of God in Proverbs 8, it is unlikely that wisdom here is to be identified with Jesus Christ. The chapter unfolds in three cycles: After an introduction (1-3), wisdom makes an invitation (4, 5) and explains that she is noble, just, and true (6-9); she then makes another invitation (10) and explains that she is valuable (11-21); and finally, she tells how she preceded and delights in creation (22-31) before concluding with the third invitation (32-36).

[1:5]  ¹⁰³ tn Or “Jesus Christ – the faithful one, the witness…” Some take ὁ πιστός (Jo pistos) as a second substantive in relation to ὁ μάρτυς (Jo martus). In the present translation, however, ὁ πιστός was taken as an adjective in attributive position to ὁ μάρτυς. The idea of martyrdom and faithfulness are intimately connected. See BDAG 820 s.v. πιστός 1.a.α: “ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός μου Rv 2:13 (μάρτυς 3); in this ‘book of martyrs’ Christ is ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς (καὶ ὁ ἀληθινός) 1:5; 3:14; cp. 19:11 (the combination of ἀληθινός and πιστός in the last two passages is like 3 Macc 2:11). Cp. Rv 17:14.”

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁴ sn The Greek term translated witness can mean both “witness” and “martyr.”

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁵ tc The reading “set free” (λύσαντι, lusanti) has better ms support (̹⁸ א A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 Ï^A sy) than its rival, λούσαντι (lousanti, “washed”; found in P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 Ï^K lat bo). Internally, it seems that the reading “washed” could have arisen in at least one of three ways: (1) as an error of hearing (both “released” and “washed” are pronounced similarly in Greek); (2) an error of sight (both “released” and “washed” look very similar – a difference of only one letter – which could have resulted in a simple error during the copying of a ms); (3) through scribal inability to appreciate that the Hebrew preposition ב can be used with a noun to indicate the price paid for something. Since the author of Revelation is influenced significantly by a Semitic form of Greek (e.g., 13:10), and since the Hebrew preposition “in” (ב) can indicate the price paid for something, and is often translated with the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) in the LXX, the author may have tried to communicate by the use of ἐν the idea of a price paid for something. That is, John was trying to say that Christ delivered us at the price of his own blood. This whole process, however, may have been lost on a later scribe, who being unfamiliar with Hebrew, found the expression “delivered in his blood” too difficult, and noticing the obvious similarities between λύσαντι and λούσαντι, assumed an error and then proceeded to change the text to “washed in his blood” – a thought more tolerable in his mind. Both readings, of course, are true to scripture; the current question is what the author wrote in this verse.

[1:5]  tn Or “and released us” (L&N 37.127).

[1:5]  ¹⁰⁶ tn The style here is somewhat Semitic, with the use of the ἐν (en) + the dative to mean “at the price of.” The addition of “own” in the English is stylistic and is an attempt to bring out the personal nature of the statement and the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ death – a frequent refrain in the Apocalypse.

[17:14]  ¹⁰⁷ tn See BDAG 636 s.v. μετά A.2.a.α.